« Can Community Involvement Prevent Memory Loss? | Main | What's the Best Alzheimer's Care? Disappointing Results from a French Study »

June 07, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d58669e20133f04790a0970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Controversy over the Causes of Alzheimer's:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Danny George

Mona, this is a fantastic article. I hope it doesn't sound immodest to say that the field is slowly beginning to support the arguments we set out in The Myth of Alzheimer's in 2008. Good to see credible researchers like Rudy, George, and others being forthright about the challenges we face.

Richard Taylor

Hello
And so now we are spending billions based on the premise that eventually "luck" not science, not a growing consesus will lead to a "cure."

A cure for what? What does it mean to cure a generalized disorder(s) of the brain? How is a chronic long term disability cured? reversed? slowed down?

There are so many more basic questions to which answers must be found before we (researchers and drug companies) know were is the best place to start to get "lucky."

This is much more than a debate between self-employer researchers. The unintended consequences of their exaggerations, over/miss representations and claims become the basis for, the reason to hope that tomorrow will be better than today for folks living with the symptoms of dementia, probably of the alzheimer's type.

And another issue - everyone with dementia does not exhibit the same general pattern of symptoms labeled for lack of a better word as Alzheimer's Disease. Raising money, focusing almost exclusively to "break through" what ever the hell the Alzheimer's Association thinks needs broken through ignores the needs of as many as half the folks living with dementia.

And another issues. When I was diagnosed the general claim was 40-50% of thos living with dementia probably had the alzheimer's type. REcently I saw a claim that percentage has escelated to 60-80%. Could there be a conscious effort to crowd out the needs of many in order to raise funds to research the needs of a few?

And another issue. Why spend these limited funds almost exclusively on bench/pill/cure research and ignore the psycho-social research needs of those living with the disease.

Must people living with the symptoms organize and represent themselves and their needs? Can we depend on others to think and act in our best interests - especially those who are invested in alzheimer's and the fear of getting it, having it, or having to take care of someone who has it - as the basis upon which they raise money?

"A world without Alzheimer"" We may be living in such a world right now! And won't someone(s) be embarassed when most of agree this is true - except for fund raisers, researchers, and drug companies.

Richard
www.richardtaylorphd.com

Oran

Thanks for this.

I am especially pleased to see that his peers have supported Dr.Castellani's research. There is new hope.

Robert Nield

In light of the failure of so many drugs trials, it's important to re-think the whole question of AD. There is serious doubt about the amyloid and senile plaque hypothesis. In 2006 I wrote an article at the BBC h2g2 website in which I presented a new line of thinking about the disease. The site address is: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A17484203

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner